- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
the house is elected every two years, this is because the founders wanted the "people's house" to be close to the people, and easy to vote people out of office frequently.
the senate every 6 years was appointed by the states before the 17th amendment, and was meant to be farther from the people, since it was for representation of the state themselves and not the people.
the senate in a sense had it own terms limits because no state would have ever sent the same senator back to the senate for 51 years...IE Robert Byrd.
Were states able to reappoint, if they so chose?
Point of curiosity on my part. Nothing else.
Thanks, but that wasn't my question. Let me rephrase...before the 17th amendment state legislatures appointed the senators, this gave states a direct voice in the federal government.Were states able to reappoint, if they so chose?
Point of curiosity on my part. Nothing else.
the house is for the people, the senate is for the states, this is referred to as mixed government, which the founders created, federalist #40.
this why no one can have all the power to be tyrannical.
by repealing the 17th we return to republican government, gives states power, to stop federal mandates, and the federal government withholding tax money to states if they do not like federal policies.
Thanks, but that wasn't my question. Let me rephrase...
Prior to the 17th Amendment, were there any artificial limits to how many times a Senator could be appointed/reappointed? Could a Senator serve 30 years, if they got re-appointed that often?
it was possible to serve 30 or more years, however state legislatures did not seem to keep reappointing the same person over and over.
I have gone back before the 17th and looked some, and senators did not serve long decades, you start seeing long term senators after the 17th
It would do the exact opposite. Special interests wouldn't throw up their hands and say, "Well you got us. We'll go away now.". No, new candidates each election would then be chosen and groomed by said special interests, and we wouldn't even know who they are as we don't know their history. We'd just be exchanging one problem for another.I absolutely think we should have term limits, and term limits of just one term for all elected politicians, President included. The reason, it severely undercuts the power of special interests to manipulate the politician's corruption in desiring to retain power, it allows the politician to concentrate his time and energy to solving the nation's problems instead of constant re-election mode the day he steps in office, and it would save a ton of money in politicians running around stumping for re-election. Term limits of one term would just have a dramatic effect in the way a politician sees things. The politician's staffs can be made up of very experienced people. There are creative ways where you can change the structure to keep some of the talented politicians under this one term limit government. For example I'd like to see one of the two senators from each state be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state legislatures, with no term limits on them as appointed officials. A state government may recognize a gifted senator and re-appoint him term after term. I'd also like to see 10% of the House of Representative seats be set aside outside of any districts where the Senate votes on the best members of the House of Representatives in their eyes and these Representative serve another term, and can be voted to as many terms as they get voted in by the Senate. These 43 or so members of the HoR will provide a continuity of leadership and experience. President's term could be raised to 6 yrs with a vote of confidence by Congress needed after 3 yrs where 3/4 negative vote would cause a new general Presidential election. Why would there be great opposition to such a system? Because most politicians do not want to give up power and those special interests that feed off the gravy train of tax payer's money know this will undermine the power they have over politicians.
It would do the exact opposite. Special interests wouldn't throw up their hands and say, "Well you got us. We'll go away now.". No, new candidates each election would then be chosen and groomed by said special interests, and we wouldn't even know who they are as we don't know their history. We'd just be exchanging one problem for another.
There are only two things that need to happen to fix things, and neither is likely anytime soon...
- Voters need to start caring enough to actually educate themselves on the issues and the people in office, and...
- Voters need to stop voting purely self-interest and understand that there is an overall picture that needs factoring in as well.
I guess the Founding Fathers should have created a pure democracy instead of the structures they put in the constitution to avoid pure democracy.
I absolutely think we should have term limits, and term limits of just one term for all elected politicians, President included. The reason, it severely undercuts the power of special interests to manipulate the politician's corruption in desiring to retain power, it allows the politician to concentrate his time and energy to solving the nation's problems instead of constant re-election mode the day he steps in office, and it would save a ton of money in politicians running around stumping for re-election. Term limits of one term would just have a dramatic effect in the way a politician sees things. The politician's staffs can be made up of very experienced people. There are creative ways where you can change the structure to keep some of the talented politicians under this one term limit government. For example I'd like to see one of the two senators from each state be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state legislatures, with no term limits on them as appointed officials. A state government may recognize a gifted senator and re-appoint him term after term. I'd also like to see 10% of the House of Representative seats be set aside outside of any districts where the Senate votes on the best members of the House of Representatives in their eyes and these Representative serve another term, and can be voted to as many terms as they get voted in by the Senate. These 43 or so members of the HoR will provide a continuity of leadership and experience. President's term could be raised to 6 yrs with a vote of confidence by Congress needed after 3 yrs where 3/4 negative vote would cause a new general Presidential election. Why would there be great opposition to such a system? Because most politicians do not want to give up power and those special interests that feed off the gravy train of tax payer's money know this will undermine the power they have over politicians.
actually republican government does this.
which is why the 17th amendment needs to be repealed, return power to the states, as to limit special interest.
your never going to stop special interest, but the founders sought it limitation by creating republican government, not democratic government.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations [special interest ] less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. -- Madison federalist 10
Yes, I realize all of this. That is what I have been posting, favoring republican form of government instead of the path we have been on in more democratizing it. I would be happy with half a Senate, which I suggested as a compromise, or whole Senate indirectly chosen. No biggie for me. I also agree with Madison on the point that size of a republic is not a threat to the nation as far as special interests that it actually makes it harder for them to dominate. But as we can see now, being a large Republic, has not solved the problem. While it may be far worse if the Republic was smaller, it is still a major problem. And the fundamental source of the problem is politicians desiring to stay in power at basically all costs and an electric easily manipulated by dishonest spin. This environment has given special interests great power. The reason why the Founders gave us an amendment process is to further tweak the Constitution as we pursue a more perfect union. Term limits of one term is just such structural things they would have hoped we would have used the amendment process for, as it keeps in their spirit of strengthening the republican form of government by utilizing structure to further tame special interests.
The only disadvantage that I could see is that the politicians who really are great wouldn't be able to stay there. But we would supposedly continue to elect more really great politicians.
The benefits are numerous. What are your thoughts?
And my plug: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-term-limits-congress/bm01vV2m sign the petition if you agree. Let's get Obama to submit an amendment. Or if he won't, let him explain why not. It's time to take the lobbyists out of Washington.
If this petition gets 150 signatures, it will go public. It needs 100,000 by 4/14/13. I'm an introvert. I don't know 150 people and I don't have facebook. If you believe in this cause, please sign it and share it.
If you don't believe in it, why not? Am I missing something?
Too late. They created a Democratic (sort of) Republic, which by granting voting rights to more persons, since, it is now an in-fact Democratic Republic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?